The UEFI SecureBoot Saga For Linux Continues

[peppepz]

Defeat

No matter how much lipstick you put on it, this is a defeat for the open source world and for computing in general. Red Hat's efforts to mitigate the problem are laudable, but the truth is that starting from today, your computer is designed not to trust you, doesn't actually belong to you, and you are only "conceded" the grant to write software that doesn't interfere with the interests of the "external owners" of the hardware you paid for. And this is true only as long as "secure boot" isn't made a fixed feature (which is clearly the next step - they've already done it on ARM!). After that we'll only be consumers. First they came for the smartphones, then they came for the tablets...

Saying that this is done for the user's security is like believing that curfews and censorship are in the interest of the security of well-behaving citizens (ask Franklin about that). So flags down, this is a sad day for the PC architecture. Microsoft won in the end.

[peppepz]

Not sure how it's anti-competitive.

I think that making the OSes of all players in the OS market a pain in the a.. to use, except for the one of the dominant player, is definitely anti-competitive, much more than bundling Windows Media Player with the OS, for which MS was massively fined in the recent past. But then I'm not an economist.

[garegin]

"No matter how much lipstick you put on it, this is a defeat for the open source world and for computing in general. Red Hat's efforts to mitigate the problem are laudable, but the truth is that starting from today, your computer is designed not to trust you, doesn't actually belong to you, and you are only "conceded" the grant to write software that doesn't interfere with the interests of the "external owners" of the hardware you paid for. And this is true only as long as "secure boot" isn't made a fixed feature (which is clearly the next step - they've already done it on ARM!). After that we'll only be consumers. First they came for the smartphones, then they came for the tablets...

Saying that this is done for the user's security is like believing that curfews and censorship are in the interest of the security of well-behaving citizens (ask Franklin about that). So flags down, this is a sad day for the PC architecture. Microsoft won in the end. "

this is pure BS. the problem is the architectural design of the kernel and the bootloader that is making it hard to sign and track it, not MS's evil plans. Linux evangelists have been wallowing in self-pity for twenty years. No-one is "after", mmk. The reason your monolithic piece of crap hasn't taken the world by a storm is because no one is buying what you are selling, sister.

[smitty3268]

I still don't get your point, ms definitely stated that on x86 platform the uefi setup MUST provide an option to disable secure boot. Only on ARM there may NOT be an option to disable it. That makes it non trivial if you dont want to desolder the eeprom of course, but maybe you find a spi interface to use. UEFI is not graved into stone, if you want to modify it, you find a way.

Unless they've changed things recently, that's not true.

ON x86 platform mobo manufacturer's were supposed to provide the option, but it was optional whether they wanted to include it or not, and some of them were already saying they might not.

Personally, i expect it will be a lot like the overclocking options MBs come with. Most of the ones you can buy off the shelf will probably have the option. But will that OEM machine you bought from Dell or HP? I wouldn't count on it.

[slojam]

No matter how much lipstick you put on it, this is a defeat for the open source world and for computing in general.

Agreed. This sucks. My respect for Redhat goes down a notch. Don't give 'em an inch, don't play their game.

[peppepz]

this is pure BS. the problem is the architectural design of the kernel and the bootloader that is making it hard to sign and track it, not MS's evil plans. Linux evangelists have been wallowing in self-pity for twenty years. No-one is "after", mmk. The reason your monolithic piece of crap hasn't taken the world by a storm is because no one is buying what you are selling, sister.

In the unlikely case that you're really convinced of what you're saying, no, the problem is not architectural but political. To make it simple:

1) Code signing with no access to the "key" is against the interest of the developer, and therefore of the user.
2) Microsoft has the "key".
3) Everyone else hasn't, and adding other keys is a pain in the a**, and has been done deliberately so by Microsoft.

And the only reasons for this royal pain are:

1) Windows piracy. Windows is currently cracked by pre-boot tricks and Microsoft understandably want to stop that. Of course, doing so by locking de facto all PCs to their own product is not an acceptable solution for anybody, but them.
2) Microsoft store. Microsoft want to sell applications and DRM-protected media through their one and only application store, and in order to to this, they need to assure Hollywood that they're in control of your own machine, not you (hence "integrity measurement").

[Kano]

The ms way to "fix" piracy is much simpler, they require activation even for oem systems. currently every oem has got one token in the bios, a cert and one product key (the key is not bound against the cert). so to pirate win the bios token (slic) is emulated or the bios is patched to have got one. btw. that leads to the funny fact that even when you have got the starter edition you just need to exchange the oem key to get the ultimate one the most simple approach to fix this issue is to require unique product keys for each system and reject keys which are activated too often. thats of course much more expensive for the oems as they need to preload the right key onto each system. that has got nothing to do with secure boot in the first place. even when ms would require uefi for oem activation and would not change the rest it would be cracked the day of release. maybe they could require secure boot for the first activation process, would be at least one option to make it harder, but time will tell. i doubt that ppl will buy more retail/update licences - just early adopters who did the same for w7.

[garegin]

i doubt piracy is such a problem. every computer comes with windows preinstalled. other than that, hackers will always find a way to crack it.

[Kano]

Well maybe not every system, the home build ones definitely not. But maybe ask ms if they want that you run another system or that you pirate their os when you refuse to pay Currently you can get the preview for free and run it 1 y as well.

[Kamikaze]

Disclaimer: had a few drinks so forgive me if I ramble..

Agreed. This sucks. My respect for Redhat goes down a notch. Don't give 'em an inch, don't play their game.

I don't see how Redhat had a choice. So far on what I've read about this MS have somehow managed to introduce/support this and hold all hardware manufacturers that want to produce hardware for Windows to ransom. Previously I'd heard SecureBoot didn't need to be enabled by default on x86 (only ARM) to be compliant for the 'Windows Certified' Sticker. Lately I've heard conflicting stories about that so I'm getting seriously concerned now, if the confusion has started already then "free" computing is in serious trouble.

this is pure BS. the problem is the architectural design of the kernel and the bootloader that is making it hard to sign and track it, not MS's evil plans. Linux evangelists have been wallowing in self-pity for twenty years...

waffle waffle, blah blah. Stopped reading about this point. Clearly you are a troll and I really wonder why this type of person even STUMBLES across phoronix let alone registers and posts in a thread about something! If your post made even a shred of sense I might have even drank the koolade and responded but oh well.

I think that making the OSes of all players in the OS market a pain in the a.. to use, except for the one of the dominant player, is definitely anti-competitive

IANAL, but I agree completely and I don't understand why there hasn't been talk of a lawsuit already (though once again IANAL which probably explains that ). This seems like a grab for power for Microsoft to introduce a trusted computing paradigm for the standard PC and tablet market.
This is the worst type of anti-competitive practice I've seen yet from any company or at least the one with the most potential to cause damage, I just hope the confusion I'd heard recently about SecureBoot and x86 was wrong otherwise we're all in for a world of pain - and forget the marketshare of Linux increasing.... ever again probably.

Actually while I'm at it, can someone explain to me how it came to be that Microsoft is one of the companies that came to be one that gets paid for signing the SecureBoot keys? Anyone got some nice links/history to read about this?

(</end ramble>)